Is HD Worthwhile?

Less · 29-04-2013, 19:57

I only ask because I removed it from my options when money got scarce and am watching freeview, yet I can still see every blemish, zit and blackhead that I saw whilst paying for the extra service.

Has freeview improved or are the people I'm watching getting grottier?

gpick24 · 29-04-2013, 20:05

There is definitely a better picture, but if I had to pay extra for it, I wouldn`t. No extra charge on VM.

Less · 29-04-2013, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpick24

There is definitely a better picture,

On what?
A better picture on HD?
Or a better picture than there used to be on freeview?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpick24

but if I had to pay extra for it, I wouldn`t. No extra charge on VM.

No extra charge on VM? Does that mean for free not only can I see zits but I can see them weeping?

gpick24 · 29-04-2013, 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

On what?
A better picture on HD?
Or a better picture than there used to be on freeview?

No extra charge on VM? Does that mean for free not only can I see zits but I can see them weeping?

Sorry, yes HD is better than standard TV, but standard TV is still a good pic and if HD cost extra then i`d just stick with SD. Obviously, that`s just my opinion, I`m sure there`ll be others who will disagree.

Restless · 29-04-2013, 20:41

Yeah for sure. Make sure you get a 1080 TV and when you watch stuff in 1080 there is a world of difference. But then again when is ultra HD coming out ?

Retlaw · 29-04-2013, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpick24

Sorry, yes HD is better than standard TV, but standard TV is still a good pic and if HD cost extra then i`d just stick with SD. Obviously, that`s just my opinion, I`m sure there`ll be others who will disagree.

Most of it is just a sales gimmick, what we have now is far better than the old cathode ray tube, if the picture is enjoyable why bother with a gimmick for a few extra zits. Doesn't make any difference wether its Freeview, FreeSat, or Sky, I can flick across from any of those and can't see any difference in picture, but volume has to be adjusted.

cashman · 29-04-2013, 20:45

Never bothered wi H.D. n am very unlikely to in future, perfectly happy wi picture ive got fer amount of stuff i watch on a very sub standard T.V. service.

gpick24 · 29-04-2013, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless

But then again when is ultra HD coming out ?

Won`t really matter for TV, they don`t even broadcast in 1080p yet, just 1080i, so what chance is there of them broadcasting ultra HD?

Less · 29-04-2013, 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Most of it is just a sales gimmick, what we have now is far better than the old cathode ray tube, if the picture is enjoyable why bother with a gimmick for a few extra zits.

Got to agree, far better than a CRT, when I had HD it was nice watching new progs showing the facinating folds in a flowers petal or a bees wing, but watching a new 'thriller', where the star has more hairs growing out of the tip of his nose than I have, no thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Never bothered wi H.D. n am very unlikely to in future, perfectly happy wi picture ive got fer amount of stuff i watch on a very sub standard T.V. service.

I can understand that, absolutely no point in crystal clear T.V. when you can't find your way to the bar on a Saturday in the Railway, to get a round in.

Restless · 29-04-2013, 22:24

Stick to black and White TV

Neil · 29-04-2013, 22:55

I watch the HD channels on virgin over the sd ones because it does look better but I think you really need a bigger tv than ours to see the difference. This is one area where virgin win over sky because you dont pay extra for hd on virgin. Virgin boxes have 3 tuners but sky only have 2 which is another advantage. Sky has more channels though.

Restless · 30-04-2013, 06:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpick24

Won`t really matter for TV, they don`t even broadcast in 1080p yet, just 1080i, so what chance is there of them broadcasting ultra HD?

True but imo there is no point buying a 720p when there is not a huge difference in price and for things like bluray and such.

Yeah ultraHD. I guess it will be a long time yet

entwisi · 30-04-2013, 07:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpick24

Won`t really matter for TV, they don`t even broadcast in 1080p yet, just 1080i, so what chance is there of them broadcasting ultra HD?

Point is we are moving away from traditional broadcast technologies... just look at the "smart" Tv's. Internet connected etc brings an alternative mechanism to deliver ultraHD direct and bypass all the horrible technical challenges that OTA broadcast brings.

I personally do think HD is a lot better than SD especially on the size of TVs we have today (and I'm not someone who wants a 50" monster thing in the corner ). People also forget that HD also brings vastly improved sound quality as well as a better picture. So even if you have your eyes shut during last night of the proms it will be a better experience than SD especially if you pipe it through a decent stereo.

Studio25 · 30-04-2013, 07:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpick24

Sorry, yes HD is better than standard TV, but standard TV is still a good pic and if HD cost extra then i`d just stick with SD. Obviously, that`s just my opinion, I`m sure there`ll be others who will disagree.

I'm in agreement...

You can tell HD is a better image if you get up close and personal, but the larger the TV, the further away you need to sit, so it all cancels out eventually. If you really notice the extra details like the nasal hairs, you're not really watching the program for its content...

Entwisi is right about the audio, though. If you like to watch Dr Who with the vocals coming from the TV and the music and ambient sound coming from the rest of the room, then HD is the way to go...

MargaretR · 30-04-2013, 07:32

All this talk about visible detail provided by differing systems is missing the basic essential - eyesight.

If everything is blurred, HD will be too.